national environmental scorecard ’10 Second Session of the 111th Congress LCV Board of directors *
John H. Adams Wade Greene, Honorary Bill Roberts, Chair Natural Resources Defense Council Rockefeller Family & Associates The Atlantic Philanthropies Marcia Aronoff Lisa Guthrie Larry Rockefeller Environmental Defense Fund Virginia League of Conservation Voters American Conservation Association Paul Austin Rampa R. Hormel Theodore Roosevelt IV, Conservation Minnesota & Conservation Enlyst Fund Honorary Chair Minnesota Voter Center John Hunting, Honorary Barclays Capital Brent Blackwelder, Honorary John Hunting & Associates Donald K. Ross Friends of the Earth Tom Kiernan, Treasurer Rockefeller Family & Associates The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert, National Parks Conservation Association Maryanne Tagney-Jones Vice Chair Michael Kieschnick Laura Turner Seydel Accord Group CREDO Mobile Turner Foundation Marcia Bystryn, Secretary Peter Mandelstam Lynde B. Uihlein New York League of Conservation Voters Bluewater Wind Brico Fund, LLC James Kimo Campbell William H. Meadows III Kathleen Welch Pohaku Fund The Wilderness Society Carrie Clark Jorge Mursuli North Carolina League of Conservation Voters Democracia U.S.A. Manny Diaz Scott A. Nathan Lydecker Diaz The Baupost Group, LLC George Frampton, Jr. John D. Podesta Covington & Burling, LLP Center for American Progress
LCV Issues & Accountability Committee *
Marcia Aronoff Wesley Warren Environmental Defense Fund Natural Resources Defense Council Brent Blackwelder Kathleen Welch Friends of the Earth Marcia Bystryn New York League of Conservation Voters
LCV scorecard Advisory Committee *
Carol Andress Craig Lasher Scott Slesinger Environmental Defense Fund Population Action International Natural Resources Defense Council Anna Aurilio Elise Russell Liguori Karen Steuer Environment America National Parks Conservation Association Pew Environment Group Melanie Beller Damon Moglen Marchant Wentworth The Wilderness Society Friends of the Earth Union of Concerned Scientists Robert Dewey Brian moore Defenders of Wildlife National Audubon Society Maureen Drouin Nancy Perry Maine League of Conservation Voters The Humane Society of the United States Marty Hayden Melinda Pierce Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund Sierra Club David Jenkins Kerry Schumann Republicans for Environmental Protection Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters Adam Kolton Cindy Shogan National Wildlife Federation Alaska Wilderness League
* Organizations are shown for identification purposes only he nonprofit League of Conservation Voters (LCV) has contents published a National Environmental Scorecard every Con- gress since 1970, the year it was founded by leaders of the 1. Analysis environmental movement following the first Earth Day. LCVT works to turn environmental values into national priorities. Overview of the 2nd This edition of the National Environmental Scorecard provides objec- Session of the 111th tive, factual information about the most important environmental legis- Congress 2 lation considered and the corresponding voting records of all members Voting Summary 4 of the second session of the 111th Congress. This Scorecard represents the consensus of experts from about 20 respected environmental and con- servation organizations who selected the key votes on which members of 2. Senate Scores Congress should be graded. LCV scores votes on the most important is- sues of the year, including energy, global warming, environmental health Vote Descriptions 7 and safety protections, public lands and wildlife conservation and spend- Senate Votes 10 ing for environmental programs. The votes included in this Scorecard pre- sented members of Congress with a real choice and help distinguish which legislators are working for environmental protection. Except in rare cir- 3. House Scores cumstances, the Scorecard excludes consensus action on the environment Vote Descriptions 16 and issues on which no recorded votes occurred. Dedicated environmentalists and national leaders volunteered their House Votes 20 time to identify and research crucial votes. We extend special thanks to our Board of Directors, Issues & Accountability Committee, and Score- card Advisory Committee for their valuable input.
Cover photo of the Deep Water Horizon oil spill disaster, provided by the United States Coast Guard. 20102005 overview Overview
The 111th Congress started off with great promise for the environment, most significantly with House passage of comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. As the 2010 National Environmental Scorecard reflects, the successes of 2009 were followed by an incredibly disappointing second session in 2010. Indeed, the most important votes of 2010 are the ones that didn’t happen: first and most im- portantly, the Senate failed to even begin debate on a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill that would have created jobs, increased America’s energy independence, and protected the planet from car- bon pollution; next, the Senate failed to respond to the greatest environmental disaster in our nation’s history — the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Even as the Senate failed to take up a comprehensive clean oil spill response bill, it was pulled when it became clear energy and climate bill, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) there were not 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. tried to block the Environmental Protection Agency Whether blocking action on a comprehensive clean ener- (EPA) from moving forward with commonsense steps gy and climate bill or on a response to the disaster in the Gulf to reduce carbon pollution. Her resolution would have or on any number of other issues, the filibuster enabled a undermined the historic clean cars standards, given pol- vocal minority of senators closely allied with Big Oil and luters a free pass to spew unlimited amounts of carbon Dirty Coal to stand in the way of progress throughout 2010. pollution into the atmosphere, and overturned the EPA’s In fact, the 2010 National Environmental Scorecard includes science-based finding that carbon pollution presents a only six different Senate votes — a paltry and disappoint- clear threat to public health and welfare. This legislation ing number that reflects the extent to which environmental was so egregious that LCV has taken the unusual step of opponents stymied efforts to even debate key legislation. double scoring the vote on it to convey just how high a Of the six different Senate votes included, only two were priority it was to defeat this resolution. pro-environment and both were defeated. One would have Unfortunately, the best that can be said of Senate en- cut subsidies to oil and gas companies, and the other would vironmental action in 2010 is that a majority of senators have eliminated tax breaks for the top income earners and voted to reject the Murkowski resolution. After a vocal invested the savings in renewable energy. The other Senate
minority of senators blocked action on a comprehensive votes, in addition to the Murkowski resolution, include a clean energy and climate bill, the Senate failed to respond delay of implementation of the EPA’s lead paint rule, an an- to the oil spill disaster in the Gulf. Although Majority ti-environmental border fence amendment, and an exten- Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and other senators crafted an sion of the environmentally harmful biodiesel tax credit.
2 www.lcv.org | 2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV 1. Analysis 3 - - As we reflecton the disappointmentsof 2010, LCV is Despite the lack of progress in 2010 and the uphill all too aware that 2011 will bring even more challenges when it comes to protecting the environment and public cleanenergyfuture.a bringinghealth andUnfortu about 2010 the in champions environmentalmany lost we nately, elections, and in many cases they have been replaced by climate change deniers who have been quite vocal about their disdain for commonsense safeguards to protect our air and water. The new House leadership has also made environmental of decadesundoing on intent is it that clear progress during the 112th Congress. battle we face in 2011, the importance of these remains issues unchanged. LCV will be there at every step of in the2011 way and beyond, working protect to the envi ronment and public health and transition our nation to a clean energy economy. - - In its most significant environmental action of the year, year, the significantof action most environmental its In Thanks to the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi across the board. House successes, resulting in a dismal legislative session Alas, the Senate failed to act on many of these modest acidification, Upper reduce restore the blooms, Mis algal estuaries, and expand the San Antonio Missions Park. including votes to boost energy efficiency,prevent ocean Riversissippi Basin, expand education,water protect our in the Gulf. The House also considered other legislation, the House passed a bill to respond to the oil spill disaster
cosponsorship any these of of bills. issue, LCV has taken the highly unusual step of scoring representatives who sought to prevent the EPA from mov from theEPA prevent sought to representatives who the fact that there no were floorvotes on thistoppriority House take didn’t any theup of Dirty Air Acts pushed by accountablepolluters under the Clean Air Act. In light of (D-CA) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the ing forward with protecting public health and holding
| www.lcv.org · LCV Scorecard Environmental National 2010 Voting Summary
2010 state averages
State Senate House Alabama 14 26 Alaska 36 0 Arizona 14 46 Arkansas 7 58 California 100 60 Colorado 50 60 senate Connecticut 64 94 Delaware 100 70 Florida 50 51 Georgia 0 38 Hawaii 86 92 Idaho 14 55 Illinois 67 67 Indiana 7 46 Iowa 43 62 Kansas 0 25 Kentucky 7 37 Louisiana 14 37 Maine 0 100 Maryland 100 85 Massachusetts 43 93 Michigan 100 56 Minnesota 86 66 Mississippi 0 60 Missouri 21 37 House Montana 50 10 Nebraska 0 20 Nevada 57 63 New Hampshire 43 90 New Jersey 100 72 New Mexico 79 90 New York 100 88 North Carolina 21 62 North Dakota 57 60 Ohio 64 54 Oklahoma 7 26 Oregon 93 76 Pennsylvania 86 60 Rhode Island 100 90 South Carolina 7 37 South Dakota 36 70 Tennessee 7 46 Texas 0 33 Utah 0 37 Vermont 100 100 Virginia 71 53 Washington 86 76 West Virginia 51 63 Wisconsin 86 59 Wyoming 14 10
4 www.lcv.org | 2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV 1. Analysis 5
a h i
Davis, Davis, g s Graham Graham out a ky S a c ns Vitter Vitter Geor Cornyn · Mississippi a s Ka n a a rolin Coble · Foxx · Foxx Coble entu a ex a K Sensenbrenner Sensenbrenner Chambliss · Chambliss T Manchin C Flake · Franks, · Franks, Flake a a h i Stearns a ouisi g a L Johanns ·Nelson, Ben Johanns Burton·Buyer · Pence · Pence Burton·Buyer ini rolin Grassley Grassley a
a onsin g out a c a S n ir C sk a Geor is Brown, Scott Brown, V lorid h a Arizon F ow W I Akin · Blunt · Emerson · ndi I est ebr Camp · Hoekstra ·Miller, C. ·Miller, Camp · Hoekstra ort Murphy, T. · Shuster · Shuster T. Murphy, Inhofe Inhofe N n N
W a Alexander, L. Alexander, usetts McConnell Blackburn, M. · Duncan ·Roe M. · Duncan ·Roe Blackburn, ni ga Lincoln ma i Lugar a s ky o a ach a c Bond Missouri ch Young, D. D. Young, n Roskam Roskam ah ss a Boehner ·Jordan · Latta · Schmidt · Latta · Schmidt Boehner ·Jordan a ns Mi Garrett Garrett a a Calvert · Campbell · Gallegly · Calvert kl io ennessee sk entu M a T ennessee ndi O a I K ennsylv T Oh Ark P Al Harper llinois I Missouri Coffman ·Lamborn Coffman Burr Jenkins · Moran, Jerry · Tiahrt Jerry · Moran, Jenkins Bennett · Hatch Bennett · Hatch Kirk Kirk s liforni a ew Jersey Thune Thune do a a ah N a a C t ns U Sullivan Sullivan rolin Brown, H. Brown, kot Aderholt llinois Ka Cantor · Forbes · Goodlatte Cantor · Forbes I a a Mississippi ma Murkowski Murkowski a Da C o Burgess · Conaway · Culberson · Hensarling · Johnson, · Johnson, · Culberson · Hensarling · Conaway Burgess Color
a Collins · Snowe Collins · Snowe h h s ama ini sk b ah a g ine rolin a a a kl ort ir a ex out Luetkemeyer Luetkemeyer Herger ·Hunter · Issa · Lewis, Jerry · Lungren · McCarthy, K. · McCarthy, · Lungren Jerry ·Hunter · Issa · Lewis, Herger · Gary ·Nunes · Rohrabacher ·Miller, ·McKeon · McClintock Royce T. · Shadegg T. · Souder S. ·Marchant · Neugebauer · Olson · Paul, Ron · Thornberry Ron · Neugebauer · Olson · Paul, ·Marchant S. · Upton G. · Guthrie · Rogers, H. · Guthrie · Rogers, G. Lowest House Delegations: 20% · 10% · Nebraska Alaska 0% · Montana 10% · Wyoming 26% · Oklahoma 26% 25% · Alabama Kansas of 0: House Scores Al O T V owest Senate Delegations: Lowest Senate 0% · Maine 0% · Mississippi 0% · 0% · Kansas Georgia · Utah 0% 0% 0% · Texas Nebraska of 0: Senate Scores Al M N S Cochran · Wicker · Wicker Cochran Broun ·Deal ·Gingrey · Graves, T. · Kingston · Linder · Price, T. · · Kingston · Linder · Price, T. T. · Graves, ·Gingrey ·Deal Broun L. Westmoreland, C Isakson Brownback · Roberts · Roberts Brownback · McHenry · Myrick Hutchison Hutchison
a
ont rolin m a ew Braley Braley C N Missouri Missouri a h ver Brown, Brown, Baird · Baird Reed · · Reed Goodwin Goodwin a ow a I out nd Moore, G. Moore, S ton Reid Reid a ini g a g sl lorid d I in ir F Cardin · Cardin a Becerra · Capps · Capps Becerra h V onsin a s c nd ev Michaud · Pingree Pingree · Michaud ode Jackson, J. · Lipinski J. Jackson, a Gillibrand · Schumer · Schumer Gillibrand N is Thompson, B. B. Thompson, est nd low scores Brady, R. · Dahlkemper · R. · Dahlkemper Brady, Wa Arcuri · Bishop, T. · Clarke Clarke · T. Bishop, · Arcuri W Langevin Langevin Rh Carper · Coons ine a nd low scores W ryl a a ork re ni nd a
liforni Y a M ork a a a a
Y M Doggett · Green, A. Doggett · Green, llinois h w C I sl s ew I a h ew ew a N Carson · Visclosky Carson · Visclosky Mississippi el N Johnson, H. · Lewis, John · Scott, John H. · Lewis, Johnson, ig a
DeGette · Markey, B. · Polis · Polis B. DeGette · Markey, Merkley Merkley ex D n ig a ode T i h a ennsylv do on Chandler Chandler g h P Snyder Snyder Rh g a s Conyers · Kildee · Levin, S. · Peters · Stupak Stupak · Peters · S. Levin, · Kildee · Conyers Minnick Minnick ky ndi a I re n c o te O Leahy · Sanders Leahy Geor ns Heinrich Heinrich ga i ah a a o Color Levin, C. · Stabenow C. · Stabenow Levin, Gordon Gordon Burris · Durbin d entu c Andrews · Holt · Pallone · Pascrell · Payne · Payne · Pascrell · Pallone · Holt · Andrews I n ont ch K Butterfield · Kissell · Miller, B. · Price, D. · Watt D. · B. · Price, Butterfield · Kissell · Miller, m Ark Capuano · Lynch · Markey, E. · McGovern · Neal · Neal · McGovern · E. Markey, · Lynch · Capuano ouse Mi ga a i Moran, James · Scott, R. James Moran, er Courtney · DeLauro · Larson, J. Courtney · Larson, J. · DeLauro a h V ch llinois Boxer · Feinstein · Feinstein Boxer I ew Mexi ew Feingold Feingold ut ini McCollum · Oberstar Oberstar · McCollum Hirono Hirono Cummings · Hoyer · Kratovil · Sarbanes · Van Hollen Hollen Van · Sarbanes · Kratovil · Hoyer · Cummings ennessee a Mi rolin c N g a usetts T ew Jersey ew ii Pastor Pastor a Blumenauer · Wu Blumenauer · Wu ti nd ir N a a Moore, D. D. Moore, Lautenberg · Menendez Lautenberg C c a s V w h ach on a Driehaus · Fudge · Kilroy · Kucinich · Ryan, T. · Sutton T. · Ryan, · Kucinich Driehaus · Fudge · Kilroy Brown, Sherrod Sherrod Brown, onsin a g c 2010 2010 sen ss ryl io io H liforni ns is a a re ort a · Quigley · Schakowsky · Quigley · Schakowsky · Kaufman · Kaufman Clyburn Clyburn C. · Castor · Grayson C. · Castor · Grayson Olver · Tsongas Tsongas · Olver O N Oh Sestak · Schwartz · Fattah Minnesot Cleaver M M Ka Conne House Scores of 100: House Scores Arizon Highest House Delegations: 94% · Massachusetts 100% · Connecticut Maine 100% · Vermont 90% · Mexico 90% · New Hampshire 92% · New 93% · Hawaii Rhode Island 90% Oh W Senate Scores of 100: Senate Scores C Jersey Highest Senate Delegations: Highest 100% · Maryland 100% · Michigan 100% · Delaware California 100% 100% · Rhode Island York 100% · New Jersey 100% · New 93% 100% · Oregon · Vermont D. D. Mikulski · Crowley · Engel · Hall, J. · Hinchey · Israel · Lowey · McCarthy, C. · C. McCarthy, · Lowey · Israel · Hinchey · J. Hall, · Engel · Velázquez · Crowley · Tonko · Slaughter · Serrano · Rangel · Nadler · G. Meeks, Whitehouse Whitehouse Rothman Rothman · Cardoza · Chu · Davis, S. · Farr · Honda · Matsui · McNerney · Honda · · Farr S. Davis, · Chu · · Cardoza · Schiff Loretta · · Sanchez, · Roybal-Allard George · Miller, Sherman · Woolsey Dicks · Inslee · Larsen, R. · McDermottDicks Welch Welch | www.lcv.org · LCV Scorecard Environmental National 2010 rating the leadership of environmental committees Senate Committee Chair Score Ranking Member Score
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Lincoln (AR) 0 Chambliss (GA) 0
Appropriations Inouye (HI) 86 Cochran (MS) 0
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Rockefeller (WV) 43 Hutchison (TX) 0
Energy and Natural Resources Bingaman (NM) 71 Murkowski (AK) 0
Environment and Public Works Boxer (CA) 100 Inhofe (OK) 0
Senate Committee Leader Average 60 0
House
Committee Chair Score Ranking Member Score
Agriculture Peterson (MN-7) 80 Lucas (OK-3) 30
Appropriations Obey (WI-7) 80 Lewis, Jerry (CA-41) 0
Energy and Commerce Waxman (CA-30) 90 Barton (TX-6) 10
Natural Resources Rahall (WV-3) 80 Hastings, D. (WA-4) 10
Science and Technology Gordon (TN-6) 100 Hall, Ralph (TX-4) 10
Transportation and Infrastructure Oberstar (MN-8) 100 Mica (FL-7) 10
House Committee Leader Average 88 12
party leaders’ scores
Senate Democrats Score Republicans Score Reid (NV), Majority Leader 100 McConnell (KY), Minority Leader 0 Durbin (IL), Majority Whip 100 Kyl (AZ), Minority Whip 14 Schumer (NY), Conference Vice Chair 100 Alexander (TN), Conference Chair 0
Leadership Average 100 Leadership Average 5
House Democrats Score Republicans Score Pelosi* (CA-8), Speaker of the House NA Hoyer (MD-5), Majority Leader 100 Boehner (OH-8), Minority Leader 0 Clyburn (SC-6), Whip 100 Cantor (VA-7), Minority Whip 0 Larson (CT-1), Caucus Chair 100 Pence (IN-6), Conference Chair 0
Leadership Average 100 Leadership Average 0
* The Speaker of the House votes at her discretion.
6 www.lcv.org | 2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV 2010 Senate Vote Descriptions
1 & 2. Dirty Air Act Global warming is the central environmental challenge of our time. In 2007 in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that global warming pollutants were covered by the Clean Air Act and directed the EPA to determine whether the continued emission of such pollutants endangered the country’s public health and welfare. In December 2009, the EPA issued this “endangerment finding,” concluding that, based on the best science, global warming pollution presents a clear threat to public health and welfare. The endangerment finding was the scientific determination necessary to allow the agency to start limiting global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. In January, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) introduced a Congressional Review Act disap- proval resolution (S.J. Res. 26) that would overturn EPA’s endangerment finding. The resolution would prevent the EPA from taking the necessary steps under the Clean Air Act to address global warming pollution. In particular, the resolution would dismantle the clean vehicles standards ne- gotiated by the Obama administration and supported by the auto industry, labor, states, and en- vironmentalists, putting at risk standards that are estimated to save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the program. In addition to blocking the clean cars standards, the resolution would have blocked new commonsense safeguards to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink from global warming pollution from some of our country’s biggest polluters. On June 10, the Senate defeated S.J. Res. 26 by a vote of 47–53 (Senate roll call vote 184). NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. Similar versions of this legislation were introduced in the House, but no bill came to a vote.
3. Cutting Oil Subsidies The oil and gas industry receives billions of dollars of government support each year through loopholes in the tax code and royalty-free lease agreements. These subsidies dwarf the incentives that are currently available for renewable energy and energy efficiency and distort the market in favor of this mature industry that is a major source of global warming and other toxic pollutants. President Obama called for the elimination of many of these subsidies in his budgets for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 and agreed to eliminate these subsidies in a pledge made with other world leaders at a Group of 20 Summit in 2009. Congress, however, has not taken the steps necessary to end these subsidies. In June, the Senate took up H.R. 4213, the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 2010, which would extend unemployment benefits to long term out of work Americans for an additional four months. Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) offered an amendment to the bill to eliminate $35 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry, giveaways which were targeted for elimination in the President’s budget; $25 billion of the savings would go to deficit reduction and $10 billion would be directed to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, a grant program that allows communities to invest in projects that reduce energy usage. On June 15, the Senate rejected the Sanders amendment by a vote of 35–61 (Senate roll call vote 187). YES IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.
2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | www.lcv.org 7 4. Biodiesel Tax Credit A tax credit for biodiesel was created in 2004 as part of the JOBS Act, which provided $1.00 to the fuel blenders for each gallon of biodiesel blended into petroleum diesel. The credit expired at the end of 2009. Since the creation of this tax credit, the environmental benefit of biodiesel has been called into question as expanded soybean and other biodiesel feedstock production has contributed to the destruction of natural ecosystems and increased agricultural inputs. The credit is considered a driver of biodiesel production in the United States, resulting in environmental damage worldwide. For example, biodiesel produced from soybeans in the United States results in a significant amount of land use change internationally, and expanded soybean production is a primary factor in the deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest. Multiple proposals were introduced throughout 2010 to retroactively extend the biodiesel tax credit. On September 16, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) introduced a motion to suspend the rules in order to consider an amendment to H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs Act, that would retroactively extend the biodiesel tax credit. The motion was defeated by a vote of 41–58 (Senate roll call vote 234), which prevented Sena- tor Grassley from offering the amendment to extend the tax credit for biodiesel. NO IS THE PRO- ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The tax credit for biodiesel was ultimately extended in December in H.R. 4853, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which was signed into law by President Obama on December 18.
5. Funding Renewable Energy Federal investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency is essential to support these bur- geoning industries as our country transitions away from fossil fuels towards a new energy future. Clean energy and energy efficiency received significant support in the economic recovery package of 2009, which boosted these critical industries at a time of economic crisis. Unfortunately, the 111th Congress failed to enact additional policies that would further unleash the job-creation po- tential of these industries, either in the form of a comprehensive clean energy and global warming bill or a federal Renewable Electricity Standard. However, as the Congress drew to a close, sena- tors were presented with a unique opportunity to invest in these industries. During consideration of H.R. 4853, legislation to extend the George W. Bush administration tax cuts, Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) proposed an amendment that would reject extending the tax cuts for the top income earners and use the savings to help low-income families and invest in clean energy. The Sanders amendment would provide critical funding for state and local energy efficiency projects, tax credits for investments in clean energy manufacturing, and loan guarantees for clean energy projects. On December 15, the Sanders motion was defeated by a vote of 43–57 (Senate roll call vote 275). YES IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.
6. Lead Paint Protections Exposure to lead is linked to a range of human health impacts, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities to seizures and death. Children under the age of six are most at risk. To im- prove public health, the EPA now requires that firms performing renovation, repair, and painting projects that disturb lead-based paint in pre-1978 homes, child care facilities, and schools be certi- fied to do so by the EPA. They also must use certified renovators who are trained by EPA-approved training providers to follow lead-safe work practices. Individuals can become certified renovators by taking an eight-hour training course. The rule mandating this requirement was published on April 22, 2008, and became effective on April 22, 2010.
8 www.lcv.org | 2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV On May 27, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced an amendment to H.R. 4899, the Sup- plemental Appropriations Act of 2010, that would deny funding for several months to the EPA to hold contractors liable for violating this rule. There was considerable debate at the time about the extent to which contractors had been provided with enough training opportunities by the EPA, with some senators arguing that there were insufficient opportunities and others countering that a myriad of opportunities had been provided and were continuing to be offered. Whatever the mer- its of each view, the fact remains that this amendment would not only prohibit the EPA from fining those contractors who had wanted to undergo safety training but were unable to do so through no fault of their own; the amendment could also prohibit the agency from fining those contractors who willfully took no precautions to confine or contain lead-contaminated paint chips, even if it resulted in the lead poisoning of children. The amendment (Senate roll call vote 173) passed by a vote of 60–37. NO IS THE PRO-ENVIRON- MENT VOTE. The amendment was not included in the final supplemental appropriations bill that became law. On June 18, the EPA extended the time for contractors to complete training until the end of 2010.
7. Border Fence Construction Nearly one-third of the 1,950 mile United States-Mexico border lies within military, tribal, and public lands, including wilderness areas, national wildlife refuges, national parks, national forests, national monuments, and state parks. Much of this country’s most magnificent and imperiled wildlife — including jaguars, ocelot, bighorn sheep, Sonoran pronghorn, and hundreds of bird spe- cies — depend upon these public lands for intact habitat. Local communities also rely on access to protected natural areas for clean water, recreation, economic development, and high quality of life. The 2005 REAL ID Act included a controversial provision that gives the secretary of the De- partment of Homeland Security (DHS) unprecedented authority to waive all federal, state, and local laws to construct border barriers and walls, bypassing legal compliance and important pub- lic processes fundamental to America’s democratic principles. Former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff invoked this authority on several occasions, including most egregiously in April 2008 when he waived 35 federal public health, safely, environmental, and cultural laws along 500 miles of the United States-Mexico border. As a result, hundreds of miles of walls and accompanying roads have been constructed in an environmentally-destructive fashion, causing damaging floods and erosion, fracturing habitat and migration corridors that are vital to maintaining healthy wild- life populations, separating local communities, and wasting taxpayer dollars through poor and rushed planning. During consideration of H.R. 4899, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) made a motion to suspend the rules to permit consideration of an environ- mentally harmful amendment that would require completion of at least 700 miles of reinforced wall along the Southwest border within one year of the bill’s passage, at minimum doubling the wall mileage currently along the Southwest border. On May 27, the DeMint motion to suspend Senate procedural rules to permit consideration of this damaging amendment failed by a vote of 45–52 (Senate roll call vote 172). NO IS THE PRO- ENVIRONMENT VOTE.
2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | www.lcv.org 9 senate votes
KEY a = Pro-environment action ✘ = Anti-environment action i = ineligible to vote s = Absence (counts as negative)
Alabama
Sessions, J. (R) 14 11 6 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Shelby (R) 14 17 14 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Alaska
Begich (D) 71 78 78 ✘ ✘
Murkowski (R) 0 22 17 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Arizona
Kyl (R) 14 6 8 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
McCain (R) 14 11 23 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Arkansas
Lincoln (D) 0 50 49 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Pryor (D) 14 67 60 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
California
Boxer (D) 100 100 89
Feinstein (D) 100 100 88
Colorado
Bennet (D) 43 76 76 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Udall, Mark (D) 57 83 97 ✘ ✘ ✘
Connecticut
Dodd (D) 71 89 77 ✘ ✘
Lieberman (I) 57 83 87 ✘ ✘ ✘
Delaware
Carper (D) 100 100 83
Coons* (D) 100 100 100
Kaufman* (D) 100 100 100
* Senator Coons was sworn in on November 15 replacing Senator Kaufman.
10 www.lcv.org | 2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV 2. senate scores 11 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 6 9 4 17 21 13 15 10 74 25 82 55 67 65 69 84 100 0 0 11 11 11 11 17 17 15 56 68 94 94 94 94 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 14 14 14 86 86 86 86 100 100 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) (R) (R) (R) (R) (R) (R) (R) (R) (R) (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (R) es t e vo at ieux Absence (counts as negative) (counts Absence ro-environment action Pro-environment action Anti-environment aii a M elson, Bill rassley urbin = vote neligible to i = = = isch oberts rapo hambliss w sen ugar e
sakson nouye R Brownback G Harkin L Bayh D Kirk* Burris* C R I Akaka C I N L s ✘ KEY
| www.lcv.org · LCV Scorecard Environmental National 2010 i a Kansas Iow Indiana Illinois Idaho Ha Georgia Florida * Senator Kirk was sworn in on November 29 replacing Senator Burris. senate votes
KEY a = Pro-environment action ✘ = Anti-environment action i = ineligible to vote s = Absence (counts as negative)
Kentucky
Bunning (R) 14 6 7 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
McConnell (R) 0 6 7 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Louisiana
Landrieu, M. (D) 29 67 47 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Vitter (R) 0 6 3 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Maine
Collins (R) 0 39 67 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Snowe (R) 0 44 65 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Maryland
Cardin (D) 100 100 90
Mikulski (D) 100 100 84
Massachusetts
Brown, Scott (R) 0 0 0 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Kerry (D) 86 94 91 ✘
Michigan
Levin, C. (D) 100 100 79
Stabenow (D) 100 100 84
Minnesota
Franken (D) 86 92 92 ✘
Klobuchar (D) 86 94 93 ✘
Mississippi
Cochran (R) 0 17 9 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Wicker (R) 0 11 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Missouri
Bond (R) 0 11 7 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
McCaskill (D) 43 72 75 ✘ ✘
12 www.lcv.org | 2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV 2. senate scores 13 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 7 6 71 41 57 78 78 67 93 26 89 86 42 96 96 64 90 90 6 6 6 17 72 78 78 33 83 83 89 89 94 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 71 71 14 14 57 57 57 86 43 43 100 100 100 100 100 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) (R) (R) (R) (R) (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D es t e vo a . M at . T ana Absence (counts as negative) (counts Absence ro-environment action Pro-environment action Anti-environment enendez elson, Ben regg illibrand organ dall, = vote neligible to i = = = eid, H. onrad nsign chumer haheen autenberg sen ester
D C Burr Hagan S G Bingaman U M L G S R E Johanns N T Baucus, s ✘ KEY
| www.lcv.org · LCV Scorecard Environmental National 2010 i a h Dakot Nort h Carolina Nort New York New Mexico New Jersey New Hampshire Nevada Nebraska Mont senate votes
KEY a = Pro-environment action ✘ = Anti-environment action i = ineligible to vote s = Absence (counts as negative)
Ohio
Brown, Sherrod (D) 100 94 93
Voinovich (R) 29 28 15 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Oklahoma
Coburn (R) 14 6 8 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Inhofe (R) 0 0 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Oregon
Merkley (D) 100 100 100
Wyden (D) 86 94 89 ✘
Pennsylvania
Casey (D) 86 94 98 ✘
Specter (D) 86 72 46 ✘
Rhode Island
Reed, J. (D) 100 100 96
Whitehouse (D) 100 100 98
South Carolina
DeMint (R) 14 6 7 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Graham (R) 0 6 10 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
South Dakota
Johnson, Tim (D) 71 89 70 ✘
Thune (R) 0 0 14 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Tennessee
Alexander, L. (R) 0 17 17 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Corker (R) 14 11 20 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Texas
Cornyn (R) 0 0 3 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
Hutchison (R) 0 11 5 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
14 www.lcv.org | 2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV 2. senate scores 15 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 5 6 0 11 17 52 83 92 95 95 89 89 86 94 80 100 0 11 11 11 17 72 83 89 94 94 94 44 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 71 14 14 57 86 86 86 43 60 100 100 100 100 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) (I) (R) (R) (R) (R) (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D es t e vo at Absence (counts as negative) (counts Absence ro-environment action Pro-environment action Anti-environment arner ebb urray anchin* oodwin* antwell = vote neligible to i = = = ockefeller nzi anders eingold sen eahy
ah
E Barrasso Kohl F R G M Byrd* C M W W L S Hatch Bennett s ✘ KEY
| www.lcv.org · LCV Scorecard Environmental National 2010 i a Wyoming Wisconsin West Virginia ington Wash Virginia Vermont Ut * Senator Goodwin was sworn in on July 16 following the passing of Senator Byrd on June 28. Senator Manchin was sworn in on November 15 replacing Senator Goodwin. 2010 house vote descriptions
1 & 2. Gulf Oil Spill Response In response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the largest environmental disaster in our nation’s history, the House of Representatives debated H.R. 3534, the Consolidat- ed Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act, or CLEAR Act, which was introduced by Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV). The CLEAR Act included unlimited liability for responsible parties that cause oil spills, sig- nificant offshore drilling and regulatory reforms, language designed to strengthen safety and en- vironmental standards for new offshore drilling and renegotiated royalty payments, and modest Gulf restoration proposals. The CLEAR Act also included full funding, more than $900 million, for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Unfortunately, an amendment to lift the six-month federal moratorium on deepwater drilling early, pending meeting certain safety requirements, was approved on the House floor. On balance, however, the bill did far more good than harm and was a significant step forward. On July 30, the House took up the CLEAR Act. Representative Bill Cassidy (R-LA) introduced a motion to send H.R. 3534 back to the House Natural Resources Committee with instructions to report the bill back immediately with an amendment terminating the deepwater drilling mora- torium. This motion, technically termed a motion to recommit, would have recklessly resumed deepwater drilling, and it failed by a vote of 166–239 (House roll call vote 512). NO IS THE PRO- ENVIRONMENT VOTE. Later that day, the CLEAR Act passed the House by a vote of 209–193 (House roll call vote 513). YES IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. Though the bill passed the full House, H.R. 3534 never came up for a vote in the Senate.
3. Energy Efficiency Housing accounts for 20% of our total energy usage, but increasing energy efficiency could reduce that number dramatically. For many homeowners, investing in measures that increase energy ef- ficiency makes economic and environmental sense: the savings from lower utility bills quickly pay back the up-front cost of the improvements and decrease our dependence on dirty sources of energy. However, many consumers cannot afford new appliances, added insulation, or other improvements. To assist consumers, Representative Peter Welch (D-VT) introduced H.R. 5019, the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010, which was later included in a larger package, H.R. 4785, the Rural Energy Savings Program. This legislation would offer rebates or interest-free loans for efficiency measures, enabling consumers to reduce their utility bills while creating needed construction and manufacturing jobs. H.R. 4785 would authorize $5 billion over five years to create two energy efficiency loan pro- grams, including $850 million annually for the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program to support loans to finance energy efficiency home renovations and $150 million annually for the Rural Energy Savings Program to make loans to eligible entities for energy efficiency measures in rural areas. On September 16, the House passed H.R. 4785 by a vote of 240–172 (House roll call vote 530). YES IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The package was introduced in the Senate by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) as S. 3102, but it was not voted upon.
16 www.lcv.org | 2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV 4. Ocean Acidification Prevention Elevated carbon dioxide emissions are not only a problem for our atmosphere. Excess carbon dioxide is also absorbed by our oceans, and is leading to changes in the chemistry of seawater in a process known as ocean acidification. A more acidic ocean could wipe out species, disrupt the food web and have an adverse impact on fishing, tourism and other important economic activities. Increased acidity also reduces carbonate — the mineral used to form the shells and skeletons of many shellfish and corals — and leads to slowed growth and weaker shells, similar to the effects of osteoporosis in humans. On June 9, Representative Jay Inslee (D-WA) made a motion to suspend the rules and adopt resolution H. Res. 989 to express the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should adopt national policies and pursue international agreements to prevent ocean acidifica- tion, study the impacts of ocean acidification, and address the effects of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems and coastal economies. Under a suspension of the rules, a two-thirds majority of those present and voting is required for adoption. The motion was rejected by a vote of 241–170 (House roll call vote 341). YES IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE.
5. Algal Bloom Reduction Harmful algal blooms, sometimes called “red tides,” are known to kill fish, marine mammals, and birds. They can contaminate shellfish with toxins and sicken swimmers and boaters. Red tides and dead zones, which are caused by another kind of algal bloom that sucks all the oxygen out of wa- ter when it dies and decomposes, appear dozens of times each year off our coasts and in our bays and freshwater lakes. Researchers have estimated that harmful algal blooms cost coastal commu- nities nearly $100 million every year. These blooms forced the closure of Maine’s shellfisheries for several months in 2009, costing over 3,000 jobs and shutting down a $50 million seasonal industry. They also killed more than four million fish off the coast of Texas, and over 10,000 sea birds off the northwest Pacific coast. The incidence and severity of these blooms is growing rapidly, driven by human causes such as nutrient pollution and the warming of our oceans and lakes by global cli- mate change. Scientists have documented a 30-fold increase in the worldwide frequency of harm- ful algal blooms since 1960. H.R. 3650, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act, introduced by Representative Brian Baird (D-WA), would establish a national strategy for addressing harmful algal blooms and dead zones, and fund the development of regional research and action plans with the intent of improving our ability to detect, predict, and control harmful algal blooms and dead zones. On March 12, the House passed H.R. 3650 by a vote of 251–103 (House roll call vote 109). YES IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The full Senate did not act on companion legislation, though a similar bill, S. 952, was passed by the Commerce Committee.
6. Upper Mississippi River Restoration The health of the Upper Mississippi River Basin is a critical national environmental issue. For more than 100 years, river management as well as nutrients and sediment coming into the river have had an adverse effect on the health of the Upper Basin. Water quality and habitat for birds and wildlife have steadily declined. In addition, the management in the Upper Basin leads to increased problems downstream and in the Gulf of Mexico, including the growing hypoxic zone in the Gulf. Representative Ron Kind (D-WI) introduced H.R. 3671, the Upper Mississippi River Basin Pro- tection Act, which authorizes $6.25 million each year for a program to monitor the environmental quality of the River Basin under the direction of the Department of Interior through the United States Geological Survey.
2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | www.lcv.org 17 On March 19, H.R. 3671 passed by a vote of 289–121 (House roll call vote 137). YES IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. A hearing was held in the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power on companion legislation, S. 2779, introduced by Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), but there was no further Senate action.
7. Water Education Environmental education prepares Americans for 21st century green jobs, increases interest in science, technology, engineering and math, and helps create the next generation of environmental stewards. Ocean and watershed education is needed now more than ever in light of 2010’s dev- astating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the worst environmental disaster in our nation’s history. Representative Lois Capps (D-CA) introduced H.R. 3644, the Ocean, Coastal, and Watershed Education Act, to authorize and increase funding for two key National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) education programs, the national Environmental Literacy Grants (ELG) program and the regional Bay-Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) program. ELG helps NOAA establish new partnerships with top science centers, aquaria and education institutions to deliver environmental education materials to thousands of teachers who educate students and the public about vital issues around our changing planet. B-WET provides competitive grants to leverage existing environmental education programs in several regional watersheds around the country. B-WET not only educates students about the environment, it also facilitates outdoor learning in the watershed. On March 19, the House passed H.R. 3644 by a vote of 244–170 (House roll call vote 142). YES IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The Senate did not vote on H.R. 3644, although a broader authorization for NOAA’s education programs that did not include specific funding levels was included in H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Act, which was signed into law by the President on January 4, 2011.
8. Estuary Protection Estuaries are among the most productive ecosystems on earth. Their unique mix of freshwater and saltwater allows for a diversity of plant, animal and aquatic species, and the associated wetlands and riparian zones provide countless ecosystem benefits and protection from storm surges and weather events. 75% of the United States commercial fish catch and 80–90% of the recreational fish catch comes from estuaries. To protect these important systems in the face of mounting stresses from development and in- creased pollution loads, Congress created the National Estuary Program (NEP) in 1987 to protect and restore 28 biologically diverse and productive estuarine systems throughout the United States. H.R. 4715, the Clean Estuaries Act of 2010, reauthorizes the NEP for an additional seven years, and increases the annual authorized funding level to $50 million. H.R. 4715 requires peri- odic updates to restoration plans and seeks to improve coordination by requiring federal agencies to participate in the management planning process. Finally, it requires that approved programs must now identify estuary vulnerabilities to climate change impacts, including sea level rise, and prepare adaptation responses, as well as work to educate the public on estuary health issues and develop performance measures and targets. On April 15, the House passed H.R. 4715 by a vote of 278–128 (House roll call vote 209). YES IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee amended and reported the bill on June 30, but it was never considered on the Senate floor.
18 www.lcv.org | 2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV 9. San Antonio Missions Park Representative Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX) and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) introduced leg- islation to expand the boundary of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park by 151 acres and conduct a study of potential land acquisitions. H.R. 4438’s innovative expansion would be managed through cooperative agreements, and ownership would remain with existing agencies and institutions. One of the areas that would be studied for potential inclusion within the Park’s boundary is eight miles of the San Antonio River. The lands considered in the 151-acre boundary adjust- ment would provide a vital buffer to the San Antonio River and receive treatments to remove invasive exotic plants. Adding eight additional miles would also help the river fully recover from the devastating effects of channelization and begin the long process of natural ecosys- tem restoration. Finally, the bill would expand green space in a densely populated urban area. On July 13, the House took up H.R. 4438 under suspension of the rules and passed the bill by a vote of 264–114 (House roll call vote 435). YES IS THE PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE. Although a hearing was held on September 29 on companion bill S. 3524 in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests as well as the Subcommittee on National Parks, no further Senate action was taken to advance this legislation.
10. Dirty Air Act Cosponsorship Global warming is the central environmental challenge of our time. In 2007 in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that global warming pollutants were covered by the Clean Air Act and directed the EPA to determine whether the continued emission of such pollutants endangered the country’s public health and welfare. In December 2009, the EPA issued this “endangerment finding,” concluding that, based on the best science, global warming pollution presents a clear threat to public health and welfare. The endangerment finding was the scientific determination necessary to allow the agency to start limiting global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. Representatives introduced eight bills to block, weaken, or delay the EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act to reduce harmful global warming pollution. These bills fall into three catego- ries: Congressional Review Act disapproval resolutions to overturn the EPA’s science-based endan- germent finding, legislation declaring that greenhouse gases are not pollutants subject to the Clean Air Act, and legislation delaying the EPA’s actions to reduce carbon pollution from the nation’s biggest stationary sources of pollution, like coal plants and oil refineries. The four disapproval resolutions (H.J. Res. 66, H.J. Res. 76, H.J. Res. 77, H. Res. 974) would, for the first time, sub- stitute Congress’ political judgment for the EPA’s scientific judgment on the public health threat posed by pollution. The three bills (H.R. 391, H.R. 4396, H.R. 4572) declaring that greenhouse gases are not pollutants under the Clean Air Act would reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark 2007 decision. The bill to delay the EPA’s actions (H.R. 4753) would put a stop-work order on the EPA’s commonsense steps to reduce carbon pollution from power plants and refineries, among other large polluters. These harmful bills would overturn sound science, threaten public health, increase our dependence on oil, and block long-overdue action to address climate change and to hold the nation’s biggest polluters accountable. 201 representatives cosponsored one or more of these Dirty Air Acts during the 111th Con- gress. Cosponsorship is the anti-environment action. None of these bills came to a vote in the House. However, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) offered a disapproval resolution (S.J. Res. 26) to overturn the EPA’s endangerment finding, which was defeated on June 10.
2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | www.lcv.org 19 house votes
KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action
✘ ation = Anti-environment action n
or
t i = ineligible to vote p
ntio
rk s shi = Absence (counts as negative) a
reve er Res
on se ons P
i s
y
osponsor es
Respon tion
t C tection
Ac
cidification P
onio Miss
ry Pro
ng Gulf Oil Spill Response time gy Ecienc
e ter Educa
ean A
a
lgal Bloom Reducti
2010 111th Congr Lif Gutti Gulf Oil Spill Ener Oc A Upper Mississippi Riv W Estua San Ant Dirty Air % ᕡ ᕢ ᕣ ᕤ ᕥ ᕦ ᕧ ᕨ ᕩ µ Alabama 1 Bonner (R) 20 8 9 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ a ✘ 2 Bright (D) 40 38 38 a ✘ a a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ 3 Rogers, Mike D. (R) 20 13 13 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ 4 Aderholt (R) 0 0 3 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 5 Griffith (R) 10 33 33 ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ 6 Bachus, S. (R) 20 8 9 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ a ✘ 7 Davis, A. (D) 70 79 69 a ✘ a a a a a a Alaska AL Young, D. (R) 0 17 10 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ Arizona 1 Kirkpatrick (D) 50 71 71 a ✘ ✘ a ✘ a ✘ a a ✘ 2 Franks, T. (R) 0 0 3 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 3 Shadegg (R) 0 0 5 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 4 Pastor (D) 100 100 82 a a a a a a a a a a 5 Mitchell (D) 60 67 81 ✘ ✘ a a a ✘ ✘ a a a 6 Flake (R) 0 0 9 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 7 Grijalva (D) 80 92 94 a a a ✘ a a a a a 8 Giffords (D) 80 92 89 a a a a a a ✘ a a Arkansas 1 Berry (D) 50 67 45 a a a a a ✘ 2 Snyder (D) 100 100 85 a a a a a a a a a a 3 Boozman (R) 10 8 6 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 4 Ross, M. (D) 70 71 52 ✘ ✘ a a a a a a a ✘ California 1 Thompson, M. (D) 90 96 89 a a a a a a a a a 2 Herger (R) 0 0 3 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 3 Lungren (R) 0 0 2 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 4 McClintock (R) 0 0 0 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 5 Matsui (D) 100 100 97 a a a a a a a a a a
20 www.lcv.org | 2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV house votes
KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action
✘ ation = Anti-environment action n
or
t i = ineligible to vote p
ntio
rk s = Absence (counts as negative) shi a
reve er Res
on se ons P
i s
y
osponsor es
Respon tion
t C tection
Ac
cidification P
onio Miss
ry Pro
ng Gulf Oil Spill Response time gy Ecienc
e ter Educa
ean A
a
lgal Bloom Reducti
2010 111th Congr Lif Gutti Gulf Oil Spill Ener Oc A Upper Mississippi Riv W Estua San Ant Dirty Air % ᕡ ᕢ ᕣ ᕤ ᕥ ᕦ ᕧ ᕨ ᕩ µ 6 Woolsey (D) 100 100 96 a a a a a a a a a a 7 Miller, George (D) 100 92 88 a a a a a a a a a a 8 Pelosi (D) N/A N/A 92 THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE VOTES AT HER DISCRETION. 9 Lee (D) 90 96 97 a a a a a a a a a 10 Garamendi (D) 90 92 92 a a a a a a a a a 11 McNerney (D) 100 96 89 a a a a a a a a a a 12 Speier (D) 90 92 91
a a a a a a a a a h 3. 13 Stark (D) 80 75 88 a a a a a a a a ouse scores ouse 14 Eshoo (D) 90 96 97 a a a a a a a a a 15 Honda (D) 100 100 98 a a a a a a a a a a 16 Lofgren (D) 70 88 90 a a a a a a a 17 Farr (D) 100 100 95 a a a a a a a a a a 18 Cardoza (D) 100 92 73 a a a a a a a a a a 19 Radanovich (R) 10 4 6 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ 20 Costa (D) 80 75 68 ✘ ✘ a a a a a a a a 21 Nunes (R) 0 4 2 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 22 McCarthy, K. (R) 0 0 0 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 23 Capps (D) 100 100 95 a a a a a a a a a a 24 Gallegly (R) 0 4 13 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 25 McKeon (R) 0 8 8 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 26 Dreier (R) 20 8 16 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ a 27 Sherman (D) 100 100 96 a a a a a a a a a a 28 Berman (D) 90 96 87 a a a a a a a a a 29 Schiff (D) 100 100 98 a a a a a a a a a a 30 Waxman (D) 90 96 91 a a a a a a a a a 31 Becerra (D) 100 100 90 a a a a a a a a a a 32 Chu (D) 100 100 100 a a a a a a a a a a 33 Watson (D) 70 88 92 a a a a a a a 34 Roybal-Allard (D) 100 96 93 a a a a a a a a a a
2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | www.lcv.org 21 house votes
KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action
✘ ation = Anti-environment action n
or
t i = ineligible to vote p
ntio
rk s shi = Absence (counts as negative) a
reve er Res
on se ons P
i s
y
osponsor es
Respon tion
t C tection
Ac
cidification P
onio Miss
ry Pro
ng Gulf Oil Spill Response time gy Ecienc
e ter Educa
ean A
a
lgal Bloom Reducti
2010 111th Congr Lif Gutti Gulf Oil Spill Ener Oc A Upper Mississippi Riv W Estua San Ant Dirty Air % ᕡ ᕢ ᕣ ᕤ ᕥ ᕦ ᕧ ᕨ ᕩ µ 35 Waters (D) 90 92 90 a a a a a a a a a 36 Harman (D) 90 92 83 a a a a a a a a a 37 Richardson (D) 90 96 92 a a a a a a a a a 38 Napolitano (D) 90 96 92 a a a a a a a a a 39 Sánchez, Linda (D) 80 79 93 a a a a a a a a 40 Royce (R) 0 4 15 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 41 Lewis, Jerry (R) 0 4 13 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 42 Miller, Gary (R) 0 0 2 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 43 Baca (D) 80 92 72 a a a ✘ a a a a a 44 Calvert (R) 0 8 8 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 45 Bono Mack (R) 30 38 18 ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ 46 Rohrabacher (R) 0 4 14 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 47 Sanchez, Loretta (D) 100 100 89 a a a a a a a a a a 48 Campbell (R) 0 0 10 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 49 Issa (R) 0 4 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 50 Bilbray (R) 30 25 48 ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ ✘ ✘ a 51 Filner (D) 90 96 92 a a a a a a a a a 52 Hunter (R) 0 0 0 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 53 Davis, S. (D) 100 96 96 a a a a a a a a a a Colorado 1 DeGette (D) 100 100 96 a a a a a a a a a a 2 Polis (D) 100 100 100 a a a a a a a a a a 3 Salazar, J. (D) 60 71 71 ✘ ✘ a ✘ a a a a a ✘ 4 Markey, B. (D) 100 88 88 a a a a a a a a a a 5 Lamborn (R) 0 0 2 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 6 Coffman (R) 0 4 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 7 Perlmutter (D) 60 83 86 a a a a ✘ a a Connecticut 1 Larson, J. (D) 100 100 88 a a a a a a a a a a 2 Courtney (D) 100 100 98 a a a a a a a a a a
22 www.lcv.org | 2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV house votes
KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action
✘ ation = Anti-environment action n
or
t i = ineligible to vote p
ntio
rk s = Absence (counts as negative) shi a
reve er Res
on se ons P
i s
y
osponsor es
Respon tion
t C tection
Ac
cidification P
onio Miss
ry Pro
ng Gulf Oil Spill Response time gy Ecienc
e ter Educa
ean A
a
lgal Bloom Reducti
2010 111th Congr Lif Gutti Gulf Oil Spill Ener Oc A Upper Mississippi Riv W Estua San Ant Dirty Air % ᕡ ᕢ ᕣ ᕤ ᕥ ᕦ ᕧ ᕨ ᕩ µ 3 DeLauro (D) 100 100 95 a a a a a a a a a a 4 Himes (D) 80 92 92 a a a a a a a a 5 Murphy, C. (D) 90 96 98 a a a a a a a a a Delaware AL Castle (R) 70 63 65 a ✘ a a a ✘ a a ✘ a Florida 1 Miller, J. (R) 10 4 9 a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 3. h 3. 2 Boyd, A. (D) 70 83 56 a a a a a a a ✘ ouse scores ouse 3 Brown, C. (D) 100 96 85 a a a a a a a a a a 4 Crenshaw (R) 60 29 11 a ✘ ✘ a a ✘ ✘ a a a 5 Brown-Waite, G. (R) 10 25 17 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 6 Stearns (R) 0 0 16 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 7 Mica (R) 10 8 8 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ 8 Grayson (D) 100 100 100 a a a a a a a a a a 9 Bilirakis (R) 30 21 23 a ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ 10 Young, C.W. (R) 10 21 29 ✘ ✘ a ✘ 11 Castor (D) 100 100 95 a a a a a a a a a a 12 Putnam (R) 30 21 9 a ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ a ✘ 13 Buchanan (R) 30 29 35 a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ 14 Mack (R) 20 13 13 a ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 15 Posey (R) 20 13 12 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ 16 Rooney (R) 20 17 17 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ 17 Meek, K. (D) 80 92 90 a a a a a a a a 18 Ros-Lehtinen (R) 50 54 43 a ✘ ✘ a a a a 19 Deutch* (D) 86 86 86 a a a a a a 20 Wasserman Schultz (D) 90 92 93 a a a a a a a a a 21 Diaz-Balart, L. (R) 40 38 28 ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ a a a 22 Klein, R. (D) 90 96 88 a a a a a a a a a 23 Hastings, A. (D) 90 83 82 a a a a a a a a a
* Representative Deutch was sworn in on April 13 following the resignation of Representative Wexler on January 3.
2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | www.lcv.org 23 house votes
KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action
✘ ation = Anti-environment action n
or
t i = ineligible to vote p
ntio
rk s shi = Absence (counts as negative) a
reve er Res
on se ons P
i s
y
osponsor es
Respon tion
t C tection
Ac
cidification P
onio Miss
ry Pro
ng Gulf Oil Spill Response time gy Ecienc
e ter Educa
ean A
a
lgal Bloom Reducti
2010 111th Congr Lif Gutti Gulf Oil Spill Ener Oc A Upper Mississippi Riv W Estua San Ant Dirty Air % ᕡ ᕢ ᕣ ᕤ ᕥ ᕦ ᕧ ᕨ ᕩ µ 24 Kosmas (D) 90 96 96 a a a a a a a a a 25 Diaz-Balart, M. (R) 40 38 19 ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ a a a Georgia 1 Kingston (R) 0 0 11 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 2 Bishop, S. (D) 90 92 50 a a a a a a a a a ✘ 3 Westmoreland, L. (R) 0 0 1 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 4 Johnson, H. (D) 100 96 95 a a a a a a a a a a 5 Lewis, John (D) 100 88 91 a a a a a a a a a a 6 Price, T. (R) 0 0 5 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 7 Linder (R) 0 0 11 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 8 Marshall (D) 50 54 57 ✘ ✘ ✘ a a a a a ✘ 9 Deal* (R) 0 0 16 ✘ 9 Graves, T.* (R) 0 0 0 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 10 Broun (R) 0 0 0 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 11 Gingrey (R) 0 0 2 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 12 Barrow (D) 90 83 69 a a a a a a a a a ✘ 13 Scott, D. (D) 100 96 74 a a a a a a a a a a Hawaii 1 Djou** (R) 83 83 83 a ✘ a a a a 2 Hirono (D) 100 100 95 a a a a a a a a a a Idaho 1 Minnick (D) 100 67 67 a a a a a a a a a a 2 Simpson (R) 10 17 6 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ Illinois 1 Rush (D) 80 92 77 a a a a a a a a 2 Jackson, J. (D) 100 92 93 a a a a a a a a a a 3 Lipinski (D) 100 92 91 a a a a a a a a a a 4 Gutierrez (D) 70 88 89 a a a a a a a 5 Quigley (D) 100 100 100 a a a a a a a a a a 6 Roskam (R) 0 17 18 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ * Representative Graves was sworn in on June 8 following the resignation of Representative Deal on March 31. ** Representative Djou was sworn in on May 22 following the resignation of Representative Abercrombie on February 28. 24 www.lcv.org | 2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV house votes
KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action
✘ ation = Anti-environment action n
or
t i = ineligible to vote p
ntio
rk s = Absence (counts as negative) shi a
reve er Res
on se ons P
i s
y
osponsor es
Respon tion
t C tection
Ac
cidification P
onio Miss
ry Pro
ng Gulf Oil Spill Response time gy Ecienc
e ter Educa
ean A
a
lgal Bloom Reducti
2010 111th Congr Lif Gutti Gulf Oil Spill Ener Oc A Upper Mississippi Riv W Estua San Ant Dirty Air % ᕡ ᕢ ᕣ ᕤ ᕥ ᕦ ᕧ ᕨ ᕩ µ 7 Davis, D. (D) 90 96 93 a a a a a a a a a 8 Bean (D) 80 92 85 a a a a a a ✘ a ✘ a 9 Schakowsky (D) 100 100 97 a a a a a a a a a a 10 Kirk, M. (R) 70 68 67 a ✘ ✘ a a a a a a 11 Halvorson (D) 90 92 92 a ✘ a a a a a a a a 12 Costello (D) 60 75 66 a a a ✘ a a a ✘ 13 Biggert (R) 50 38 33 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a a a a h 3. 14 Foster (D) 90 75 74
a a a a a a a a a scores ouse 15 Johnson, Timothy (R) 80 58 65 a a ✘ a a a ✘ a a a 16 Manzullo (R) 10 4 9 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 17 Hare (D) 90 92 89 a a a a a a a a a 18 Schock (R) 10 21 21 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 19 Shimkus (R) 10 8 6 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ Indiana 1 Visclosky (D) 100 92 73 a a a a a a a a a a 2 Donnelly (D) 70 75 74 ✘ ✘ a a a a a a a ✘ 3 Souder (R) 0 0 9 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 4 Buyer (R) 0 4 7 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 5 Burton (R) 0 0 7 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 6 Pence (R) 0 0 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 7 Carson (D) 100 100 97 a a a a a a a a a a 8 Ellsworth (D) 50 71 70 ✘ ✘ a a a a a ✘ 9 Hill (D) 90 88 76 a a a a a a a a a Iowa 1 Braley (D) 100 100 93 a a a a a a a a a a 2 Loebsack (D) 90 96 93 a a a a a a a a a 3 Boswell (D) 80 88 62 a a a a a a a a ✘ 4 Latham (R) 30 13 8 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ a a 5 King, S. (R) 10 4 3 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | www.lcv.org 25 house votes
KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action
✘ ation = Anti-environment action n
or
t i = ineligible to vote p
ntio
rk s shi = Absence (counts as negative) a
reve er Res
on se ons P
i s
y
osponsor es
Respon tion
t C tection
Ac
cidification P
onio Miss
ry Pro
ng Gulf Oil Spill Response time gy Ecienc
e ter Educa
ean A
a
lgal Bloom Reducti
2010 111th Congr Lif Gutti Gulf Oil Spill Ener Oc A Upper Mississippi Riv W Estua San Ant Dirty Air % ᕡ ᕢ ᕣ ᕤ ᕥ ᕦ ᕧ ᕨ ᕩ µ
Kansas 1 Moran, Jerry (R) 0 0 9 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 2 Jenkins (R) 0 4 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 3 Moore, D. (D) 100 96 87 a a a a a a a a a a 4 Tiahrt (R) 0 0 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ Kentucky 1 Whitfield (R) 30 29 16 ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ a ✘ 2 Guthrie (R) 0 4 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 3 Yarmuth (D) 90 96 98 a a a a a a a a a 4 Davis, G. (R) 0 4 5 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 5 Rogers, H. (R) 0 13 10 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 6 Chandler (D) 100 96 95 a a a a a a a a a a Louisiana 1 Scalise (R) 20 8 5 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 2 Cao (R) 50 46 46 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a a a a 3 Melancon (D) 90 75 53 a a a a a a a a a ✘ 4 Fleming (R) 20 8 8 ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ ✘ ✘ 5 Alexander, R. (R) 20 17 11 ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ ✘ ✘ 6 Cassidy (R) 40 29 29 ✘ ✘ ✘ a a a a ✘ ✘ ✘ 7 Boustany (R) 20 13 6 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ Maine 1 Pingree (D) 100 100 100 a a a a a a a a a a 2 Michaud (D) 100 100 93 a a a a a a a a a a Maryland 1 Kratovil (D) 100 88 88 a a a a a a a a a a 2 Ruppersberger (D) 80 83 85 a a a a a a a a 3 Sarbanes (D) 100 100 95 a a a a a a a a a a 4 Edwards, D. (D) 90 96 96 a a a a a a a a a 5 Hoyer (D) 100 92 77 a a a a a a a a a a 6 Bartlett (R) 10 13 20 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘
26 www.lcv.org | 2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV house votes
KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action
✘ ation = Anti-environment action n
or
t i = ineligible to vote p
ntio
rk s = Absence (counts as negative) shi a
reve er Res
on se ons P
i s
y
osponsor es
Respon tion
t C tection
Ac
cidification P
onio Miss
ry Pro
ng Gulf Oil Spill Response time gy Ecienc
e ter Educa
ean A
a
lgal Bloom Reducti
2010 111th Congr Lif Gutti Gulf Oil Spill Ener Oc A Upper Mississippi Riv W Estua San Ant Dirty Air % ᕡ ᕢ ᕣ ᕤ ᕥ ᕦ ᕧ ᕨ ᕩ µ 7 Cummings (D) 100 100 94 a a a a a a a a a a 8 Van Hollen (D) 100 100 99 a a a a a a a a a a Massachusetts 1 Olver (D) 100 100 98 a a a a a a a a a a 2 Neal (D) 100 96 91 a a a a a a a a a a 3 McGovern (D) 100 100 100 a a a a a a a a a a 4 Frank, B. (D) 80 92 92
a a a a a a a a h 3. 5 Tsongas (D) 100 100 100 a a a a a a a a a a ouse scores ouse 6 Tierney (D) 90 96 98 a a a a a a a a a 7 Markey, E. (D) 100 100 94 a a a a a a a a a a 8 Capuano (D) 100 96 95 a a a a a a a a a a 9 Lynch (D) 100 96 96 a a a a a a a a a a 10 Delahunt (D) 60 83 89 a a a a a a Michigan 1 Stupak (D) 100 96 69 a a a a a a a a a a 2 Hoekstra (R) 0 4 14 ✘ ✘ 3 Ehlers (R) 70 58 59 ✘ a a ✘ a a a a a 4 Camp (R) 0 13 10 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 5 Kildee (D) 100 100 88 a a a a a a a a a a 6 Upton (R) 0 21 37 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 7 Schauer (D) 90 96 96 a a ✘ a a a a a a a 8 Rogers, Mike (R) 20 21 9 ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ a ✘ ✘ 9 Peters (D) 100 100 100 a a a a a a a a a a 10 Miller, C. (R) 0 29 19 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 11 McCotter (R) 10 25 14 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 12 Levin, S. (D) 100 100 88 a a a a a a a a a a 13 Kilpatrick (D) 60 83 84 a a a a a a 14 Conyers (D) 100 96 77 a a a a a a a a a a 15 Dingell (D) 90 92 73 a a a a a a a a a
2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | www.lcv.org 27 house votes
KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action
✘ ation = Anti-environment action n
or
t i = ineligible to vote p
ntio
rk s shi = Absence (counts as negative) a
reve er Res
on se ons P
i s
y
osponsor es
Respon tion
t C tection
Ac
cidification P
onio Miss
ry Pro
ng Gulf Oil Spill Response time gy Ecienc
e ter Educa
ean A
a
lgal Bloom Reducti
2010 111th Congr Lif Gutti Gulf Oil Spill Ener Oc A Upper Mississippi Riv W Estua San Ant Dirty Air % ᕡ ᕢ ᕣ ᕤ ᕥ ᕦ ᕧ ᕨ ᕩ µ
Minnesota 1 Walz (D) 90 92 86 a a a a a a a a a ✘ 2 Kline, J. (R) 20 8 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 3 Paulsen (R) 40 29 29 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ a a ✘ 4 McCollum (D) 100 100 98 a a a a a a a a a a 5 Ellison (D) 90 92 96 a a a a a a a a a 6 Bachmann (R) 10 4 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 7 Peterson (D) 80 79 45 a ✘ a a a a a a a ✘ 8 Oberstar (D) 100 100 74 a a a a a a a a a a Mississippi 1 Childers (D) 70 67 67 a ✘ a a a a a a ✘ 2 Thompson, B. (D) 100 100 76 a a a a a a a a a a 3 Harper (R) 0 4 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 4 Taylor (D) 70 54 44 a a a ✘ a a a a ✘ Missouri 1 Clay (D) 80 92 86 a a a a a a a a 2 Akin (R) 0 0 3 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 3 Carnahan (D) 90 96 93 a a a a a a a a a 4 Skelton (D) 50 75 43 a ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ a a a ✘ 5 Cleaver (D) 100 96 87 a a a a a a a a a a 6 Graves, S. (R) 10 8 5 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 7 Blunt (R) 0 0 2 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 8 Emerson (R) 0 8 7 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 9 Luetkemeyer (R) 0 4 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ Montana AL Rehberg (R) 10 8 5 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ Nebraska 1 Fortenberry (R) 30 33 30 ✘ ✘ ✘ a a a ✘ 2 Terry (R) 10 13 9 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ 3 Smith, Adrian (R) 20 8 7 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
28 www.lcv.org | 2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV house votes
KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action
✘ ation = Anti-environment action n
or
t i = ineligible to vote p
ntio
rk s = Absence (counts as negative) shi a
reve er Res
on se ons P
i s
y
osponsor es
Respon tion
t C tection
Ac
cidification P
onio Miss
ry Pro
ng Gulf Oil Spill Response time gy Ecienc
e ter Educa
ean A
a
lgal Bloom Reducti
2010 111th Congr Lif Gutti Gulf Oil Spill Ener Oc A Upper Mississippi Riv W Estua San Ant Dirty Air % ᕡ ᕢ ᕣ ᕤ ᕥ ᕦ ᕧ ᕨ ᕩ µ
Nevada 1 Berkley (D) 90 92 86 a a a a a a a a a 2 Heller (R) 10 8 14 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a 3 Titus (D) 90 96 96 a ✘ a a a a a a a a New Hampshire 1 Shea-Porter (D) 90 96 95 a a a a a a a a a 2 Hodes (D) 90 96 98 a a a a a a a a a 3. h 3. New Jersey ouse scores ouse 1 Andrews (D) 100 100 91 a a a a a a a a a a 2 LoBiondo (R) 40 63 73 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ a ✘ a 3 Adler (D) 90 92 92 a a ✘ a a a a a a a 4 Smith, C. (R) 50 67 73 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ a a a 5 Garrett (R) 0 0 12 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 6 Pallone (D) 100 100 97 a a a a a a a a a a 7 Lance (R) 40 58 58 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ a a a 8 Pascrell (D) 100 96 93 a a a a a a a a a a 9 Rothman (D) 100 96 93 a a a a a a a a a a 10 Payne (D) 100 100 89 a a a a a a a a a a 11 Frelinghuysen (R) 20 21 52 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ a 12 Holt (D) 100 100 100 a a a a a a a a a a 13 Sires (D) 90 88 89 a a a a a a a a a New MeXIco 1 Heinrich (D) 100 100 100 a a a a a a a a a a 2 Teague (D) 80 83 83 ✘ ✘ a a a a a a a a 3 Luján (D) 90 96 96 a a a a a a a a a New York 1 Bishop, T. (D) 100 100 98 a a a a a a a a a a 2 Israel (D) 100 100 95 a a a a a a a a a a 3 King, P. (R) 10 25 20 ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | www.lcv.org 29 house votes
KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action
✘ ation = Anti-environment action n
or
t i = ineligible to vote p
ntio
rk s shi = Absence (counts as negative) a
reve er Res
on se ons P
i s
y
osponsor es
Respon tion
t C tection
Ac
cidification P
onio Miss
ry Pro
ng Gulf Oil Spill Response time gy Ecienc
e ter Educa
ean A
a
lgal Bloom Reducti
2010 111th Congr Lif Gutti Gulf Oil Spill Ener Oc A Upper Mississippi Riv W Estua San Ant Dirty Air % ᕡ ᕢ ᕣ ᕤ ᕥ ᕦ ᕧ ᕨ ᕩ µ 4 McCarthy, C. (D) 100 96 93 a a a a a a a a a a 5 Ackerman (D) 60 83 87 a a a a a a 6 Meeks, G. (D) 100 100 88 a a a a a a a a a a 7 Crowley (D) 100 100 95 a a a a a a a a a a 8 Nadler (D) 100 100 96 a a a a a a a a a a 9 Weiner (D) 90 88 94 a a a a a a a a a 10 Towns (D) 90 96 78 a a a a a a a a a 11 Clarke (D) 100 100 91 a a a a a a a a a a 12 Velázquez (D) 100 96 91 a a a a a a a a a a 13 McMahon (D) 90 96 96 a ✘ a a a a a a a a 14 Maloney (D) 90 96 94 a a a a a a a a a 15 Rangel (D) 100 100 82 a a a a a a a a a a 16 Serrano (D) 100 100 89 a a a a a a a a a a 17 Engel (D) 100 96 91 a a a a a a a a a a 18 Lowey (D) 100 100 92 a a a a a a a a a a 19 Hall, J. (D) 100 100 98 a a a a a a a a a a 20 Murphy, S. (D) 80 83 83 a a a a a ✘ a a a 21 Tonko (D) 100 100 100 a a a a a a a a a a 22 Hinchey (D) 100 100 96 a a a a a a a a a a 23 Owens (D) 60 67 67 a a a a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a 24 Arcuri (D) 100 92 91 a a a a a a a a a a 25 Maffei (D) 90 96 96 a a a a a a a a a 26 Lee, C. (R) 10 13 12 ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 27 Higgins (D) 90 96 93 a a a a a a a a a 28 Slaughter (D) 100 100 94 a a a a a a a a a a 29 Vacant THIS SEAT WAS VACANT FOR THE VOTES INCLUDED IN THIS SCORECARD. North Carolina 1 Butterfield (D) 100 96 85 a a a a a a a a a a 2 Etheridge (D) 90 92 79 a a a a a a a a a ✘
30 www.lcv.org | 2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV house votes
KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action
✘ ation = Anti-environment action n
or
t i = ineligible to vote p
ntio
rk s = Absence (counts as negative) shi a
reve er Res
on se ons P
i s
y
osponsor es
Respon tion
t C tection
Ac
cidification P
onio Miss
ry Pro
ng Gulf Oil Spill Response time gy Ecienc
e ter Educa
ean A
a
lgal Bloom Reducti
2010 111th Congr Lif Gutti Gulf Oil Spill Ener Oc A Upper Mississippi Riv W Estua San Ant Dirty Air % ᕡ ᕢ ᕣ ᕤ ᕥ ᕦ ᕧ ᕨ ᕩ µ 3 Jones (R) 40 33 23 ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ a a ✘ 4 Price, D. (D) 100 100 86 a a a a a a a a a a 5 Foxx (R) 0 0 6 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 6 Coble (R) 0 0 13 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 7 McIntyre (D) 90 83 60 a a a a a a a a a ✘ 8 Kissell (D) 100 88 88 a a a a a a a a a a 9 Myrick (R) 0 0 6 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 3. h 3. 10 McHenry (R) 0 0 2 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ouse scores ouse 11 Shuler (D) 90 88 79 a a a a a a a a a 12 Watt (D) 100 100 91 a a a a a a a a a a 13 Miller, B. (D) 100 100 95 a a a a a a a a a a North Dakota AL Pomeroy (D) 60 67 60 ✘ ✘ a a a a a a ✘ Ohio 1 Driehaus (D) 100 100 100 a a a a a a a a a a 2 Schmidt (R) 0 13 10 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 3 Turner (R) 10 29 12 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 4 Jordan (R) 0 0 2 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 5 Latta (R) 0 0 0 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 6 Wilson, Charlie (D) 70 79 72 a ✘ a ✘ a a a a a ✘ 7 Austria (R) 10 4 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ 8 Boehner (R) 0 0 2 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 9 Kaptur (D) 70 88 77 a a a a a a a 10 Kucinich (D) 100 88 90 a a a a a a a a a a 11 Fudge (D) 100 96 96 a a a a a a a a a a 12 Tiberi (R) 20 25 14 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ a ✘ ✘ 13 Sutton (D) 100 100 93 a a a a a a a a a a 14 LaTourette (R) 40 42 28 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a a a ✘ 15 Kilroy (D) 100 100 100 a a a a a a a a a a 16 Boccieri (D) 90 92 92 a ✘ a a a a a a a a
2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | www.lcv.org 31 house votes
KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action
✘ ation = Anti-environment action n
or
t i = ineligible to vote p
ntio
rk s shi = Absence (counts as negative) a
reve er Res
on se ons P
i s
y
osponsor es
Respon tion
t C tection
Ac
cidification P
onio Miss
ry Pro
ng Gulf Oil Spill Response time gy Ecienc
e ter Educa
ean A
a
lgal Bloom Reducti
2010 111th Congr Lif Gutti Gulf Oil Spill Ener Oc A Upper Mississippi Riv W Estua San Ant Dirty Air % ᕡ ᕢ ᕣ ᕤ ᕥ ᕦ ᕧ ᕨ ᕩ µ 17 Ryan, T. (D) 100 100 82 a a a a a a a a a a 18 Space (D) 60 75 72 ✘ ✘ a ✘ a a a a a ✘ Oklahoma 1 Sullivan (R) 0 0 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 2 Boren (D) 60 58 36 ✘ ✘ a a ✘ a a a a ✘ 3 Lucas (R) 30 13 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ ✘ a ✘ 4 Cole (R) 30 17 6 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ ✘ a ✘ 5 Fallin (R) 10 4 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ Oregon 1 Wu (D) 100 100 95 a a a a a a a a a a 2 Walden (R) 10 29 13 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ 3 Blumenauer (D) 100 100 94 a a a a a a a a a a 4 DeFazio (D) 90 83 90 a a a a a a a a a 5 Schrader (D) 80 88 88 a a a a a a a a ✘ Pennsylvania 1 Brady, R. (D) 100 100 78 a a a a a a a a a a 2 Fattah (D) 100 100 88 a a a a a a a a a a 3 Dahlkemper (D) 100 92 92 a a a a a a a a a a 4 Altmire (D) 80 79 79 a a a ✘ ✘ a a a a a 5 Thompson, G. (R) 10 4 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ 6 Gerlach (R) 30 38 54 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ a ✘ ✘ 7 Sestak (D) 100 96 96 a a a a a a a a a a 8 Murphy, P. (D) 70 83 88 a a a ✘ a a ✘ a a 9 Shuster (R) 0 4 6 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 10 Carney (D) 70 75 79 a a a a a a a 11 Kanjorski (D) 90 96 72 a a a ✘ a a a a a a 12 Critz* (D) 67 67 67 a a a ✘ a ✘ 13 Schwartz (D) 100 100 98 a a a a a a a a a a 14 Doyle (D) 90 92 65 a a a a a a a a a
* Representative Critz was sworn in on May 18 following the passing of Representative Murtha on February 28.
32 www.lcv.org | 2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV house votes
KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action
✘ ation = Anti-environment action n
or
t i = ineligible to vote p
ntio
rk s = Absence (counts as negative) shi a
reve er Res
on se ons P
i s
y
osponsor es
Respon tion
t C tection
Ac
cidification P
onio Miss
ry Pro
ng Gulf Oil Spill Response time gy Ecienc
e ter Educa
ean A
a
lgal Bloom Reducti
2010 111th Congr Lif Gutti Gulf Oil Spill Ener Oc A Upper Mississippi Riv W Estua San Ant Dirty Air % ᕡ ᕢ ᕣ ᕤ ᕥ ᕦ ᕧ ᕨ ᕩ µ 15 Dent (R) 40 38 32 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ a a ✘ 16 Pitts (R) 10 4 9 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 17 Holden (D) 70 79 59 a ✘ a ✘ a a a a a ✘ 18 Murphy, T. (R) 0 21 14 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 19 Platts (R) 20 29 35 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ Rhode Island 1 Kennedy (D) 80 75 89 a a a a a a a a 3. h 3. 2 Langevin (D) 100 100 98 a a a a a a a a a a ouse scores ouse South Carolina 1 Brown, H. (R) 0 4 6 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 2 Wilson, J. (R) 10 4 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ 3 Barrett (R) 10 4 5 ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 4 Inglis (R) 10 17 26 ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 5 Spratt (D) 90 96 78 a a a a a a a a a ✘ 6 Clyburn (D) 100 96 83 a a a a a a a a a a South Dakota AL Herseth Sandlin (D) 70 67 64 a ✘ a ✘ a a a a a ✘ Tennessee 1 Roe (R) 0 4 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 2 Duncan (R) 0 4 13 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 3 Wamp (R) 10 13 11 ✘ ✘ a ✘ 4 Davis, L. (D) 60 63 59 a ✘ a a a a a ✘ 5 Cooper (D) 90 92 77 a ✘ a a a a a a a a 6 Gordon (D) 100 100 67 a a a a a a a a a a 7 Blackburn, M. (R) 0 0 2 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 8 Tanner (D) 60 58 44 a ✘ ✘ a a a a a ✘ 9 Cohen (D) 90 96 96 a a a a a a a a a TeXas 1 Gohmert (R) 10 4 3 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 2 Poe (R) 10 4 6 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘
2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | www.lcv.org 33 house votes
KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action
✘ ation = Anti-environment action n
or
t i = ineligible to vote p
ntio
rk s shi = Absence (counts as negative) a
reve er Res
on se ons P
i s
y
osponsor es
Respon tion
t C tection
Ac
cidification P
onio Miss
ry Pro
ng Gulf Oil Spill Response time gy Ecienc
e ter Educa
ean A
a
lgal Bloom Reducti
2010 111th Congr Lif Gutti Gulf Oil Spill Ener Oc A Upper Mississippi Riv W Estua San Ant Dirty Air % ᕡ ᕢ ᕣ ᕤ ᕥ ᕦ ᕧ ᕨ ᕩ µ 3 Johnson, S. (R) 0 0 6 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 4 Hall, R. (R) 10 4 14 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ 5 Hensarling (R) 0 0 6 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 6 Barton (R) 10 4 7 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ 7 Culberson (R) 0 0 3 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 8 Brady, K. (R) 10 4 3 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ 9 Green, A. (D) 100 100 80 a a a a a a a a a a 10 McCaul (R) 10 13 9 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ 11 Conaway (R) 0 0 0 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 12 Granger (R) 20 8 5 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ a ✘ 13 Thornberry (R) 0 0 1 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 14 Paul, Ron (R) 0 0 26 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 15 Hinojosa (D) 80 79 62 a ✘ a a a a a a a 16 Reyes (D) 70 83 61 a a ✘ a a a a a 17 Edwards, C. (D) 70 75 43 ✘ ✘ a a a a a a a ✘ 18 Jackson Lee (D) 80 92 79 a ✘ a a a a a a a 19 Neugebauer (R) 0 0 1 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 20 Gonzalez (D) 80 92 81 a ✘ a a a a a a a 21 Smith, Lamar (R) 10 8 7 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ 22 Olson (R) 0 0 0 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 23 Rodriguez (D) 70 79 73 ✘ ✘ a a a a a a a 24 Marchant (R) 0 0 2 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 25 Doggett (D) 100 100 97 a a a a a a a a a a 26 Burgess (R) 0 0 2 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 27 Ortiz (D) 60 75 42 ✘ ✘ a ✘ a a a a a ✘ 28 Cuellar (D) 70 88 59 ✘ ✘ a a a a a a a ✘ 29 Green, G. (D) 60 83 64 ✘ ✘ a ✘ a a a a a ✘ 30 Johnson, E. (D) 90 96 80 a a a a a a a a a 31 Carter (R) 10 4 2 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ 32 Sessions, P. (R) 10 4 3 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘
34 www.lcv.org | 2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV house votes
KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action
✘ ation = Anti-environment action n
or
t i = ineligible to vote p
ntio
rk s = Absence (counts as negative) shi a
reve er Res
on se ons P
i s
y
osponsor es
Respon tion
t C tection
Ac
cidification P
onio Miss
ry Pro
ng Gulf Oil Spill Response time gy Ecienc
e ter Educa
ean A
a
lgal Bloom Reducti
2010 111th Congr Lif Gutti Gulf Oil Spill Ener Oc A Upper Mississippi Riv W Estua San Ant Dirty Air % ᕡ ᕢ ᕣ ᕤ ᕥ ᕦ ᕧ ᕨ ᕩ µ
Utah 1 Bishop, R. (R) 10 4 2 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 2 Matheson (D) 90 75 64 a ✘ a a a a a a a a 3 Chaffetz (R) 10 4 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ Vermont AL Welch (D) 100 96 95 a a a a a a a a a a Virginia 3. h 3. 1 Wittman (R) 40 29 27 ✘ ✘ ✘ a a a ✘ ✘ a ✘ ouse scores ouse 2 Nye (D) 90 75 75 a ✘ a a a a a a a a 3 Scott, R. (D) 100 96 85 a a a a a a a a a a 4 Forbes (R) 0 4 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 5 Perriello (D) 90 79 79 a ✘ a a a a a a a a 6 Goodlatte (R) 0 8 8 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 7 Cantor (R) 0 0 3 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 8 Moran, James (D) 100 96 85 a a a a a a a a a a 9 Boucher (D) 60 83 68 ✘ ✘ a a a a a a ✘ 10 Wolf (R) 10 17 28 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a 11 Connolly (D) 90 96 96 a a a a a a a a a Washington 1 Inslee (D) 100 100 91 a a a a a a a a a a 2 Larsen, R. (D) 100 100 88 a a a a a a a a a a 3 Baird (D) 100 92 92 a a a a a a a a a a 4 Hastings, D. (R) 10 4 2 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 5 McMorris Rodgers (R) 10 4 2 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 6 Dicks (D) 100 100 69 a a a a a a a a a a 7 McDermott (D) 100 96 89 a a a a a a a a a a 8 Reichert (R) 70 67 63 ✘ ✘ ✘ a a a a a a a 9 Smith, Adam (D) 90 96 91 a a a a a a a a a
2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV | www.lcv.org 35 house votes
KEY LCV SCORES a = Pro-environment action
✘ ation = Anti-environment action n
or
t i = ineligible to vote p
ntio
rk s shi = Absence (counts as negative) a
reve er Res
on se ons P
i s
y
osponsor es
Respon tion
t C tection
Ac
cidification P
onio Miss
ry Pro
ng Gulf Oil Spill Response time gy Ecienc
e ter Educa
ean A
a
lgal Bloom Reducti
2010 111th Congr Lif Gutti Gulf Oil Spill Ener Oc A Upper Mississippi Riv W Estua San Ant Dirty Air % ᕡ ᕢ ᕣ ᕤ ᕥ ᕦ ᕧ ᕨ ᕩ µ
West Virginia 1 Mollohan (D) 70 79 45 a a ✘ a a a a a ✘ 2 Capito (R) 40 33 29 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ a a ✘ 3 Rahall (D) 80 83 67 a a a ✘ a a a a a ✘ Wisconsin 1 Ryan, P. (R) 20 13 24 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 2 Baldwin (D) 90 96 97 a a a a a a a a a 3 Kind (D) 90 96 91 a a a a a a a a a ✘ 4 Moore, G. (D) 100 96 98 a a a a a a a a a a 5 Sensenbrenner (R) 0 4 37 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 6 Petri (R) 20 29 49 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ 7 Obey (D) 80 92 85 a a a a a a a a 8 Kagen (D) 70 88 89 a a a a a a a ✘ Wyoming AL Lummis (R) 10 4 4 ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ a ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘
36 www.lcv.org | 2010 National Environmental Scorecard · LCV ADD MY VOICE TO AMERICA’S ENVIRONMENTAL MAJORITY
Please visit www.lcv.org/scorecard to view the scorecard electronically, share it with friends and family, and learn more about how you can join with other environmental activists around the country who are making their voices heard from the statehouse to the White House.
To track how your representative and senators vote on key environmental, clean energy and public health votes in 2011, please visit www.lcv.org to view our Online Vote Tracker.
To make an additional contribution to LCV to support our efforts to turn your
environmental values into national priorities, please use the enclosed envelope or visit www.lcv.org/donate.
Thank you for being the voice for the environment.
TM
www.facebook.com/LCVoters www.twitter.com/LCVoters 1920 L Street, NW, Suite 800 · Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202.785.8683 · www.lcv.org
This publication was designed and printed using 100% wind power and was printed on an alcohol-free press with soy-based inks on 100% recycled stock.